These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10207954)

  • 1. Control of hearing-aid saturated sound pressure level by frequency-shaped output compression limiting.
    McDermott HJ; Dean MR; Dillon H
    Scand Audiol; 1999; 28(1):27-38. PubMed ID: 10207954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Clinical evaluation of a portable digital hearing aid with narrow-band loudness compensation.
    Hidaka H; Kawase T; Takahashi S; Suzuki Y; Ozawa K; Sakamoto S; Sasaki N; Hirano K; Ueda N; Sone T; Takasaka T
    Scand Audiol; 1998; 27(4):225-36. PubMed ID: 9832405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting. IV. Fitting hearing aids with multi-channel compression so as to restore 'normal' loudness for speech at different levels.
    Moore BC
    Br J Audiol; 2000 Jun; 34(3):165-77. PubMed ID: 10905450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The National Acoustic Laboratories' procedure for selecting the saturation sound pressure level of hearing aids: experimental validation.
    Storey L; Dillon H; Yeend I; Wigney D
    Ear Hear; 1998 Aug; 19(4):267-79. PubMed ID: 9728722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Duration, compression, and the aided loudness discomfort level.
    Fortune T; Scheller T
    Ear Hear; 2000 Aug; 21(4):329-41. PubMed ID: 10981609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Preferred listening levels: the effect of background noise for moderate-to-profoundly hearing impaired aid users.
    Dean MR; McDermott HJ
    Scand Audiol; 2000; 29(3):139-49. PubMed ID: 10990012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparing loudness normalization (IHAFF) with speech intelligibility maximization (NAL-NL1) when implemented in a two-channel device.
    Keidser G; Grant F
    Ear Hear; 2001 Dec; 22(6):501-15. PubMed ID: 11770672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An initial-fit comparison of two generic hearing aid prescriptive methods (NAL-NL2 and CAM2) to individuals having mild to moderately severe high-frequency hearing loss.
    Johnson EE
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2013 Feb; 24(2):138-50. PubMed ID: 23357807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparison of threshold-based fitting strategies for nonlinear hearing aids.
    Stelmachowicz PG; Dalzell S; Peterson D; Kopun J; Lewis DL; Hoover BE
    Ear Hear; 1998 Apr; 19(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 9562535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evaluation of the CAMEQ2-HF method for fitting hearing aids with multichannel amplitude compression.
    Moore BC; Füllgrabe C
    Ear Hear; 2010 Oct; 31(5):657-66. PubMed ID: 20526199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Fitting hearing aids to individual loudness-perception measures.
    Ricketts TA
    Ear Hear; 1996 Apr; 17(2):124-32. PubMed ID: 8698159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting: II. Hearing aids with multi-channel compression.
    Moore BC; Alcántara JI; Stone MA; Glasberg BR
    Br J Audiol; 1999 Jun; 33(3):157-70. PubMed ID: 10439142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effect of maximum power output and noise reduction on speech recognition in noise.
    Kuk F; Peeters H; Lau C; Korhonen P
    J Am Acad Audiol; 2011 May; 22(5):265-73. PubMed ID: 21756842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effects of multi-channel compression time constants on subjectively perceived sound quality and speech intelligibility.
    Hansen M
    Ear Hear; 2002 Aug; 23(4):369-80. PubMed ID: 12195179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Quality rating test of hearing aid benefit in the NIDCD/VA Clinical Trial.
    Noffsinger D; Haskell GB; Larson VD; Williams DW; Wilson E; Plunkett S; Kenworthy D
    Ear Hear; 2002 Aug; 23(4):291-300. PubMed ID: 12195171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Client preferences for compression threshold in single-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aids.
    Barker C; Dillon H
    Ear Hear; 1999 Apr; 20(2):127-39. PubMed ID: 10229514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The National Acoustic Laboratories' procedure for selecting the saturation sound pressure level of hearing aids: theoretical derivation.
    Dillon H; Storey L
    Ear Hear; 1998 Aug; 19(4):255-66. PubMed ID: 9728721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of the NAL(R) and Cambridge formulae for the fitting of linear hearing aids.
    Peters RW; Moore BC; Glasberg BR; Stone MA
    Br J Audiol; 2000 Feb; 34(1):21-36. PubMed ID: 10759075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The selection and validation of output sound pressure level in multichannel hearing aids.
    Preminger JE; Neuman AC; Cunningham DR
    Ear Hear; 2001 Dec; 22(6):487-500. PubMed ID: 11770671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Loudness discrimination of speech signals spectrally shaped by a simulated hearing aid.
    Rakerd B; Punch J; Hooks W; Amlani A; Vander Velde TJ
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 1999 Dec; 42(6):1285-94. PubMed ID: 10599612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.